26.11.2020 Views

CM December 2020

The CICM magazine for consumer and commercial credit professionals

The CICM magazine for consumer and commercial credit professionals

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

EXCLUSIVE REPORT<br />

STACKING<br />

THE ODDS<br />

Lenders are open to the risk of<br />

fraudulent use of multiple Personal<br />

Guarantees.<br />

AUTHOR – Sean Feast FCI<strong>CM</strong><br />

PERSONAL Guarantees (PGs)<br />

are being used fraudulently by<br />

small business owners to take<br />

out multiple loans without any<br />

chance of those loans ever being<br />

paid back.<br />

And Credit Reference Agencies (CRAs) who<br />

have been made aware of the practice and<br />

could solve the problem simply by creating a<br />

new PG database are so far failing to act.<br />

The news follows a review of loans agreed<br />

by several different lenders which have<br />

since defaulted and are now owned by the<br />

commercial debt solutions business, Azzurro<br />

Associates.<br />

Analysts within Azzurro quickly identified<br />

that the same PGs were being used to secure<br />

new loans from different lenders sometimes<br />

only days after a previous loan had defaulted<br />

and without the new lender being aware.<br />

Andrew Birkwood, Chief Executive of<br />

Azzurro Associates, has evidence of one case<br />

where the owner of a gift shop defaulted on a<br />

loan on 9 November with one lender, only to<br />

take out another loan with a different lender<br />

on 22 November using the exact same Personal<br />

Guarantee. He went bust owing more than<br />

£50,000: “Had the second lender been aware<br />

that the busines owner had been using the<br />

same PG, they would not have agreed to the<br />

loan,” he says.<br />

“The problem is that lenders would have no<br />

way of knowing, and the CRAs, who could do<br />

something about it, seem reluctant to listen.”<br />

THE CREDIT ECOSYSTEM<br />

CRAs are fundamental to the credit ecosystem.<br />

Their databases (CAIS – Experian, SHARE<br />

– TransUnion, Insight – Equifax), and the<br />

framework around accessing and submitting<br />

data to them, enable a fair lending construct<br />

allowing lenders to confidently offer financial<br />

products, and borrowers to safely secure credit.<br />

Previously, CRAs held consumer databases<br />

that included commercial transactions for sole<br />

traders, SMEs and small partnerships. In 1999,<br />

the Information Commissioners Office (ICO)<br />

instructed the CRAs to separate the ‘personal’<br />

and ‘business’ data for consumers which has<br />

since led to the maintenance of two discrete<br />

databases: Consumer and Commercial.<br />

In the instance of PG-backed lending for<br />

commercial loans, there is no CRA database for<br />

reporting the commitment by the individual<br />

PG, or the post-default liability. The credit<br />

contract is a commercial agreement, and thus<br />

it cannot be held within the Consumer CRA<br />

database. And currently, no personal data may<br />

be held within the Commercial CRA database.<br />

“This leads to several negative consequences<br />

for both the lender and the wider credit<br />

market, which are a material risk to sustainable<br />

commercial lending,” Andrew adds.<br />

For SMEs, particularly recently incorporated<br />

companies, finance is not always easily<br />

available with sole liability on the company.<br />

Commercial lenders commonly require a PG –<br />

usually a company director – to offer increased<br />

security against the repayment of the loan. The<br />

PG will undergo a credit score assessment, as<br />

part of the underwriting of the loan.<br />

“With no Personal Guarantor bureau, the<br />

facility for lenders to report the position of<br />

personal guarantees does not exist,” Andrew<br />

continues.<br />

“With PGs, the guarantee is not called upon<br />

by the creditor until the company defaults on<br />

payment. So there isn’t a default as such by the<br />

PG. The company defaults, and at that point the<br />

creditor can call on the PG for payment when<br />

the company has failed to pay. In this case<br />

liability for the debt shifts to the PG.”<br />

In the current hiatus created by the ICO there<br />

is no record of an individual guaranteeing a<br />

company debt; there is no record of whether that<br />

individual is currently liable for the guaranteed<br />

debt due to a default by the borrowing entity;<br />

and there is no record of a PGs payment<br />

behaviour in relation to a defaulted debt.<br />

PG ‘STACKING’<br />

This absence of data presents a challenge to<br />

commercial lenders looking to offer credit<br />

backed by a PG. A lender will underwrite the<br />

loan based on factors including the completion<br />

of an application form and a credit check<br />

on any guarantor(s). The lender at this point<br />

is only privy to the personal credit file of the<br />

Advancing the credit profession / www.cicm.com / <strong>December</strong> <strong>2020</strong> / PAGE 21<br />

continues on page 22 >

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!